alokkrsharma wrote: > There are unanswered questions in > https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-pass-instrumentation-based-verification-for-pgo-use-profile-consistency/90796?u=boomanaiden154-1 > and it is still unclear how this integrates with profcheck.
Thanks, I agree there are still open questions on the RFC thread, especially around scope and the relationship with ProfCheck. Just to clarify, I'm not expecting this PR to land before those discussions are resolved. The current branch is primarily a PoC to validate the RFC ideas on real optimization pipelines and to measure the signal/noise characteristics of the approach. Since the RFC was posted, I've made a number of changes aimed at reducing false positives (e.g. the new approxprofile attribute, opt-in aggressive checks, indirect-call handling, diagnostic deduplication, and a standalone verifier mode in addition to the instrumentation-based mode). Regarding ProfCheck, I currently see them as complementary. One goal of the instrumentation-based mode is to help identify which pass first introduces a profile-flow inconsistency. The standalone mode is more about validating whether flow-conservation properties still hold after a sequence of transformations. Once the RFC direction is clearer, I'm happy to split this work into smaller pieces and revisit what should remain separate versus what could potentially build on or integrate with existing ProfCheck infrastructure. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/196295 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
